November 17, 2010

Esbensen has found acceptance among fellow Unitarians, where humanists are a known quantity. But people from other faiths, when they learn she's an atheist, are often "a little puzzled and concerned." Most tragically, when she became a minister she lost her best friend, who felt this was not an appropriate role for a nonbeliever.

"That is so arrogant," clucks Esbensen. "There can be a lot of arrogance attached to people who believe in God."

There are people on both sides of the God line who are arrogant and who are kind and gentle. I think it's best not to stereotype.

As for whether atheists can be good ministers, I'm sure they can. The question is: Should they admit they are atheists? Surely, there must be many, many religious leaders who, in their hearts, are atheists.

267 comments:

The basics of Christianity are the facts contained in the Apostles' Creed. Unbelief in any of those facts will make one into an apostate Christian. But some of my best friends are apostate Christians. We are called to overcome evil with good, and leave the hard stuff to God who alone knows what is in men's hearts.

While no doubt there are religious who are arrogant and Atheists who are gentle the atheist you describe is undoubtedly arrogant. To take on religious ministry as an atheist is a kind of fraud and presumption. An authentically religious person believes that they are following a greater power, while the atheist believes in their own talent. She may be nice etc but that's only a surface feature.

When I was a student at the University of Illinois, I played in the Unitarian coffee house, a joint known as The Red Herring.

You'd be surprised at the great musicians who passed through there before they were "somebody." This includes Dan Fogelburg and Steve Goodman, among many others. I got to play with some real legends in the basement coffee house.

The Unitarians are damned near communists. I looked it up not long ago, the The Red Herring is still in business, teaching the dumb redneck kids fresh in from the farm towns about socialism and vegetarianism.

The UU is a “church” for people who like to go to IHOP after Church, but don’t want to be bothered with well, really going to church on Sundays. It’s like the US Air Force, the USAF is for those who want to join something LIKE the military, without all the bother.

Of course atheists are/can be good and caring members of a community, but offering spiritual guidance "ministering" to a religious congregation when in their hearts, they are atheists, makes a mockery of their ordination and non-belief.

Unitarians are usually very nice people. Their "Church" welcomes all, or no, beliefs to come to meetings and hear how glad they are not to be stuck in a Christian Church. Different strokes for different folks.

Apologies to USAF veterans, any way…I’m sure this atheist is very nice and gentle, But I’d like to hear her definition of “arrogant.” Further, whilst she may be admirable, that confuses the individual with the mass, as a MASS Conservatives, Religious Conservatives, give more than non-religious to charity, to include BOTH Parochial and Secular Charities. A hard-core Baptist or Catholic is more likely to give to “God’s Pantry” AND the United Way as is a “Bright”. Now all us Brights can scream and holler all we want, but that’s what at least one statistical survey demonstrates, “Who Really Cares?” is its title. As a group, Conservatives and Religious Conservatives give more than Liberals or Brights, so this UU “Minister” can be as nice as she wants, but on the whole she represents a rather stingy lot…

As to religious leaders being atheists, I don’t think so Ann. Depends on your definition of “atheism” I guess…it’s called “faith” for a reason, it is the belief in something we cannot see feel or touch…the Difference between Angels/Demons and humans is that Angels or Demons KNOW and are in contact with Yhwh constantly; there is no “belief;” there is that connection. Humans don’t have that intimate connection, we have to “believe”…and sometimes belief in something you can’t feel, touch or measure will wear thin. Mother Teresa “doubted” at times, how could she not? She faced indescribable horrors and the Dark Night of the Soul of Millions, you can’t face that and NOT doubt about Yhwh or His Beneficence. That doesn’t make her an “atheist” it makes her a human…

I was a Unitarian for a bunch of years as a way stop on my own path to atheism. I think it's a stretch to call Unitarians Christians, since, for one thing they don't believe that Jesus Christ was divine (hence the "uni" -- for one God, vice the Trinity).

Unlike most Christian denominations, where a bishop assigns ministers, each Unitarian congregation selects its own minister. Consequently if the Prairie Unitarian Universalist Society want to pick an atheist to serve in that role, then they have every right to do so.

On the other hand, if the people who make up the Prairie Unitarian Universalist Society are anything like the folks at All Souls, Paint Branch, River Road, and Arlington two to three decades ago then, yes, I can picture them believing that they are "kinder, gentler people."

While actually being arrogant, sanctimonious, hypocritical, judgmental, and everything else that make folks well to the left of center so utterly despicable.

However, religious leaders, while often paying lip service to the above notions, often act in exactly the opposite manner.

People in institutional leadership positions are often very similar - ambitious, convinced that they are infallible, etc. That can lead to arrogance, and eventually, that arrogance subjugates their spiritual side (if there was any to begin with), and then they start using that religion to further their personal aims and prejudices.

Sometimes, therefore, a lack of leader-defined spiritual structure might work better for spiritually uplifting someone (if they are into that sort of thing).

I think about things, imagine others, but I refuse to believe in anything.

Sorry but, like that rabbi I mentioned, I've seen the rest of you being too cruel to change that. I also don't think anything will change until believers accept that the invocation to be like them is cruel itself. I will not.

Abandons what sort of faith? Purely religious faith or all faith in everything you cannot empirically prove for yourself? Wouldn't the latter remove you from the set of people that believe matter is composed of atoms?

(assumes you've never worked at a supercollider or a facility with an electron microscope and too much free time)

Atheists and Believers are all “Theistically Certain.” They are, if you’ll pardon me, like Nazi’s and Communists, supposedly bitter enemies, but both groups are still Totalitarians. Both groups “Believe” something, it may be the diametrically opposite thing, Yhwh does/does NOT exist, but they both “believe” and act upon that belief, even though they have no empirical evidence to support their beliefs or actions.

There was a study that showed the Theistically Certain believed in larger families than Agnostics, and that Theistically Certain families approached their “optimal” size more closely than did Agnostic families. “Believers” believe in larger families and have larger families than their “doubting cousins.” Kind of funny in one sense…

Frankly I do not think it show much compassion to make distinction like this. I've worked with gentle, giving people who ranged from secular humanist, to ex-nuns. I've taught in Lutheran, and Unitarian Sunday schools a long time ago. The often pejorative description of religions other than one's own, seen on this thread and other places, is one reason why I left organized dogma behind.

So my brother is saying grace and he's going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and

pauses while he thinks up more stuff to go on about

and on and on and on and on.

And my whole family is sitting there while the dinner I made is going cold. And he's on and on and on and on and on and on.

And I'm thinking, "Jesus Christ, this is a long grace innit."

and on and on and on, and finally he goes, "Does anybody want to add something?" I clamped down hard on my tongue, real hard, because I fighting the impulse to say, "Yes! Lord, please help James say shorter graces."

Suppose you're a Freshman girl from the burbs and you dream of writing the Great American Novel and, in your spare time, eradicating injustice from the world.

You wouldn't want to go down to the local meat market bar to get loaded on beer and shots, and fuck some redneck cowboy in the back seat of his pickup truck, right? That would be beneath your dignity.

So, places like The Red Herring. Our girl can drink camomile tea and eat clean vegetarian food, listen to some heartbreaking folk music about injustice, score some weed and have a meaningful experience with some young dude who likewise is worried about the state or the world.

There is really a problem that so many high profile so-called Christians do so much damage to the public image of the faith.

The most visible so-called Christian political agenda in America features support for greedy money grabs by the rich, rejects stewardship of our natural gifts and is fronted by a mean-spiritedness against those who do not share the narrow-minded views of the religious right.

The religious right is doing great damage to the image of Christianity with their contortions to the faith and driving people away in droves.

A high school friend of mine is an atheist UU minister. She was called to do the ministry part of church without the God part. She is fairly liberal and I am not. She is about my only liberal friend with whom I can have a calm, reasoned conversation about our differences. With the others, I just avoid politics.

The religious right is doing great damage to the image of Christianity with their contortions to the faith and driving people away in droves.

Tell me about it Brother, there latest was that attempted Times Square car bombing, and that Baptist nutjob shooting up Fort Hood, and then the Catholic with bomb in his underwear, and that Lutheran with the exploding shoe, or how about that Australian Pentecostal Minister who said womyn deserved to be raped when they dressed immodestly, they were simply uncovered meat…hold it I may have gotten some of that wrong.

There's a saying I've heard among Unitarians that "no one is ever just a vegetarian.

Drew said..."One could probably say, also, that no one is ever just an atheist."

One can certainly wonder at the people that claim to be spiritual, who believe there's something called a soul and will answer in the affirmative when asked if death is when that something leaves the body, but be complete flummoxed when asked when that something enters the body. The most common sentence I encounter after that little episode is, "Well, I never really thought about it".

We attend a Presbyterian Church (PCUSA)that accepts all points of view in class discussions, but remains traditional in doctrines. We see large numbers of Baptists fleeing from legalistic Churches who show an allergic reaction to "Faith" that believes in anything much just because the Scriptures say so. So we see that `people once burned by legalistic approaches can go overboard into quasi-atheism to avoid that kind of trap again.

Hi! We are students at Smith College in Massachusetts taking a Research Seminar. We invite you to take a survey assessing gender attitudes and behavior. The survey should take between 30-45 minutes to complete and is completely anonymous. To thank you for your participation, you will be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift card on Amazon.com. Thank you in advance for your participation!

You know God has never shown up - ever - yet you still insist I have to believe there's no god, rather than merely accepting there's no god. There's a difference. If you don't understand the difference, fine. But if you do, then you're just being cruel.

yet you still insist I have to believe there's no god, rather than merely accepting there's no god. There's a difference.

Crack, it seems to me that if you "accept" something as true, but have no way of proving it as such, it requires belief.

I accept some apples are red. I can prove it (at least within the human visible spectrum), but I also accept that apples are made of atoms and molecules. I cannot prove that it's so, but I believe it to be true.

No Garage you only BELIEVE there is no G*d. If you can produce any scientific evidence which either PROVES or DISPROVES the existence of Yhwh I’ll eat my hat. Being able to explain the Universe without reference to Yhwh does NOT disprove His existence…one can explain fire without reference to oxygen or explain an apple falling without reference to gravity, that does NOT mean however, that oxygen doesn’t exist or that gravity isn’t a force in the Universe.

The Pope BELIEVES in G*d, you BELIEVE there is no G*d, they are both beliefs, unsupportable by Reason or Empiricism. That’s why both you and The Poppa are both Theistically Certain.

Crack, I think that would make you an agnostic rather than an atheist.

No, an agnostic leaves the question open, I do not.

As far as I can see, atheists tend to be very strong evangelical believers.

No, atheists are not believers - we accept there's no God, so there's nothing to believe in.

As a long-time agnostic, I summarize agnosticism with the words "I don't know."

Is there a God? I don't know.Is there an everlasting soul? I don't know.Is there a heaven or hell? I don't know.

Atheists are the flip side to the fundamentalist Bible thumpers. Both are certain that what they believe is the absolute truth. Both can be just as annoying and arrogant about forcing their views on others.

As for me, I don't know. Every now and then, just for fun, I describe myself to liberals as a fundamentalist agnostic just to watch their heads explode.

Her response to the dying communion wafer woman was stupid and gratuitously cruel.

The dying communion wafer woman had faith that the wafer was the body of Christ. So her concern about the authenticity of a quarter of a wafer communion was genuine and legitimate. How could Eberson, with her dismissal of communion as mere superstition, get her mind around the woman's torment? She couldn't. To the shallow all of the rituals with which the world's great religions attempt to leap the gap between our profane time bound existence and the sacred-eternal are just so much rigamarole

"The closest that anyone has ever come to creating a widely-accepted list of Jewish beliefs is Rambam's thirteen principles of faith. Rambam's thirteen principles of faith, which he thought were the minimum requirements of Jewish belief, are:

1. G-d exists 2. G-d is one and unique 3. G-d is incorporeal 4. G-d is eternal 5. Prayer is to be directed to G-d alone and to no other 6. The words of the prophets are true 7. Moses' prophecies are true, and Moses was the greatest of the prophets 8. The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses 9. There will be no other Torah 10. G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of men 11. G-d will reward the good and punish the wicked 12. The Messiah will come 13. The dead will be resurrected."

(Rambam is the nickname for Maimonides, a medieval Jewish philosopher and one of the greatest Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages.)

She's teaching salvation through works - which is a heresy among Christians. Christians teach salvation through grace, meaning it is unmerited. Of course Unitarianism is effectively universalism (everybody goes to Heaven) or indifferentism (all religions are the same) and these are both heresies under Christian doctrine. This feels/sounds good pablum is an empty consolation when the inevitable (suffering and death) comes. Her deathbed manner highlighted the fact.

So we usually keep our mouths shut unless we know you well enough to be comfortable sharing that part of ourselves with you. Even then, I've gotten responses like this from people I've known for years:

"You're an atheist? I'm surprised, you always seemed so thoughtful."

"So you don't believe in right and wrong?"

"How can you not believe in God? Did something happen to make you not believe?"

Etc, etc. So I try not to mention it, even to long-time acquaintances, if only to avoid giving them the opportunity to be asinine. :)

There are people on both sides of the God line who are arrogant and who are kind and gentle. I think it's best not to stereotype.

Unitarian Universalist family I know, the woman says she just "hates" Christians because they don't believe others can go to Heaven. Asked her if she knew Catholicism teaches everybody can go to Heaven? Nope, didn't know that.

Her son, a self-professed atheist, lied to get into Boy Scouts. When he told another boy he was an atheist, the boy told others. After verifying that he was indeed he was an atheist, he was expelled from the troop. Despite his lying to get into the troop, the Boy Scouts were the evil ones.

I must say that most Unitarians I know are physically gentler, but that seems to be because they generally seem to be less athletic/physical and more cerebral.

My childhood baptist (somewhat charismatic baptist at that) church morphed into a Unitarian church over the last 10-15 years. They finally got kicked out of the Baptist church organization (they switched over on the sly for years) but they got to keep the land they were given by another Baptist church in the area for starting the offshoot church (this was some 30 years ago). They have also steadily lost most of their members but there are a dedicated few who just stuck around.

Instead of making new signs, though, they just removed the letters for “Baptist” out of X X bapist church, but you can still see it on the wall and the signs. It cracks me up when I see it.

Why would you become a minister if you don’t believe in god? Even a Unitarian minister should believe in some sort of god, right?

The Boy Scouts are ignorant bigots for having the policy in the first place.

The Boy Scouts consider themselves a religious based organization. I suppose Catholics are ignorant bigots for not letting non-Catholics participate in certain rituals. The same for Jews, Muslims (they won't even let non-Muslims into the city of Mecca!!!!1), Mormoms, etc.

It's obvious who is the ignorant one here. (I knew from the start bringing up the Boy Scouts would get a rise out of some people.)

Pogo, you are right on the mark: Tell that to the victims of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot - and their followers - such kind people with such big hearts. Who exactly have run the great charity efforts in history? Atheists? I don't think so. Who worked to end slavery? Who gives the most to charity? Not even close. Case closed.

Just because there are plenty of flawed human beings in religious movements, it is an absurdity to assert that atheists are the more kind or gentle people.

"Since atheists are widely hated in our society, the only atheists who speak up about our beliefs (or lack thereof) tend to be those of us who are looking for an argument with believers."

Not true in my circle. I'm a Scientist by profession and a believing Catholic. It was far far easier when I was an atheist.

@Crack

"You know God has never shown up - ever"

He showed up in my life in an undeniable albeit subjective way. I had what is called "a consolation" On the day my first son was born I held him in my arms and felt the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I felt in my heart as a vast fluid outpouring of love which I could not see or hear or smell but flowed out from above and it washed over me in a vast overabundance. Now I can't prove it in any Scientific sense and you might think my testimony makes me certifiable, but in my view that moment was more real than any I lived since.

"Is this really widespread? Or are there merely a few loud voices on the internet playing the victim game?"

Not in my experience out in real life. Most people (aside from the deeply religious) don't seem to care much.

But then, that's face to face, isn't it? Just scan this blog's comments not even very far back to find spurious and gratuitous slurs about atheists. On other blogs (like SlashDot), it's common to find the opposite.

Surely, there must be many, many religious leaders who, in their hearts, are atheists.

Are you being facetious?

AL;The most visible so-called Christian political agenda in America features support for greedy money grabs by the rich, rejects stewardship of our natural gifts and is fronted by a mean-spiritedness against those who do not share the narrow-minded views of the religious right.

The religious right is doing great damage to the image of Christianity with their contortions to the faith and driving people away in droves.

I suggest you spend less time watching TV and reading blogs and spend actual time with "day to day" Christians. Do more listening and less talking. And after you've done that on at least a weekly basis for several months, then come back here and talk about "so called Christians".

traditionalguy said... Unitarians are usually very nice people. Their "Church" welcomes all, or no, beliefs to come to meetings and hear how glad they are not to be stuck in a Christian Church. --------------

Exactly! All the trappings of church without all those inconvenient calls of God on your life.

But then, that's face to face, isn't it? Just scan this blog's comments not even very far back to find spurious and gratuitous slurs about atheists. On other blogs (like SlashDot), it's common to find the opposite.

But that's the internet where everything is magnified. When people learn that I am a Christian, no one in meat-space ever says "Oh, you have an imaginary sky friend," but if I had a dollar for every time I heard that comment on the internet, I could take care of our national debt.

So I really doubt that atheists are the next big thing in victimized identity groups. I suspect they want to be, though.

Is this really widespread? Or are there merely a few loud voices on the internet playing the victim game?

I'm not "playing the victim game", I'm just explaining why atheists stay quiet. You can consult polls on American attitudes towards atheists if you want confirmation.

For example, the Pew 2003 poll of religious attitudes found that atheists had a net favorability of -18 overall, -26 among those with "very" favorable/unfavorable views. That makes us about as popular as Nancy Pelosi is now, or George Bush was at the low point of his Presidency.

First of all, the Boy Scouts deny being a religious organization when it suits them, e.g. when they're looking for a government hand-out.

Secondly, are you honestly arguing that holding a belief for religious reasons exempts that belief from being considered ignorant and/or bigoted? Seriously?

The Boy Scouts teach that atheists and homosexuals are incapable of the level of morality expected from a member of the Scouts. Anyone who believes that atheists and homosexuals can't be every bit as morally upstanding as anyone else is an ignorant bigot -- regardless of whether they think God told them that or whether it is just some dipshit world-view they cooked up on their own.

I have no problem with the atheist or the believer positions. Only with individuals within each, and even that isn't worth getting pissed about in a modern free country. We just need to preserve that, and everyone can do their thing, except the likes of Fred Phelps, who needs an ass kicking. I think we can all agree on that.

What would a Christian minister say to me, if I asked on my deathbed if he thought my good deeds in life were enough to get me into Heaven?

Look...the woman asked for a communion wafer on her deathbed. It was obviously not the appropriate time for a "teachable moment" on the non-existence and/or irrelevance of god.

What's really bad about saying something like "If there's a God, he has seen what a good and kind and loving person you are" to a dying stranger is that there's a good chance that that that's exactly what they're worried about! That is, many people aren't good and kind and loving. Let's face it, a lot of people are absolute bastards. But they're still human beings and they need and deserve comfort at the end of their lives, not smarmy, condescending little lectures from Unitarian Universalist Atheist Ministers.

There's a time and a place for everything and that wasn't it.

As for what a Christian minister would say to you, it would probably be something along the lines of "No, good deeds alone aren't enough, but if you accept Jesus as your savior right now you can still get in, no problem". Maybe some of the theologians can help me out with that one.

By grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift from God.

The answer to the person who is asking on her deathbed is that God loves you, the Bible says so, you know it's true. Jesus died for you to forgive all of your sins because all have sinned and all fall short. So Jesus died to take all of our sin on Himself and rose again. He loves us and we need do nothing at all but accept His free gift.

It's really basic John 3:16 stuff, basic Gospel verses.

It would be rude to push the Gospel on someone who didn't want to hear it, but when someone clearly asks for that reassurance, I can't imagine refusing it. How horrible.

I think that religious people are seeing patterns that aren't there, because the human mind has a built-in bias to see patterns.

The universe has an order and a structure to it, but to say that order and structure necessarily implies a powerful intelligence that cares about us doesn't make any sense to me--it's like seeing a snowflake and insisting that it was painstakingly crafted by elves. It seems like people seeing patterns that aren't there. There are people who go into ecstacies when they see the face of Jesus on a cheese sandwich. There are plenty of religious people who consider themselves more sophisticated than that, but they make the same error on a more abstract level, in my opinion.

I'm sure everyone agrees that the water from the sprinklers put that image of the side of the building. Some religious people go further and claim it is a miracle. Do I know for a fact that the Virgin Mary had nothing to do with it, that she used to the sprinklers and the building to send a message? No, but I have literally spent zero time considering the possibility that she might have, and I don't understand why anyone would take so seriously as some of these people have.

And that's why I say I'm an atheist and not an agnostic. Maybe some day there will be some evidence that shows that the patterns religious people claim they see in the universe are real, but until then I'll be going about my business. The world as it is, is hard enough to understand; and the intentions and actions of the intelligences I've actually met are already hard enough to figure out.

This is what bugs me the most in RL situations where, for some reason or other, the issue of Faith comes up. It's not the people who think you're a superstitious idiot for considering the possibility of God that are the most insulting. Yes, of course, if you're being insulted (sky fairy, etc) then it's insulting, but the worst is the person who is overtly condescending, who has found a way to make religion into something acceptable and "cute" and who explains her generosity of spirit in a way that seems to expect a pat on the back for being such a tolerant and accepting person.

There is a contingent of atheists (Phillip Pullman is one) who, if one scratches the surface, you find it's not so much that they actually disbelieve in God; the do, they're just mad at him.

However, that does no describe all atheists. For the record, lack of evidence for the existence of something is evidence for the non-existence of something. Otherwise, we could draw no conclusions about anything; we'd be saying simply because we can find no evidence for the existence of Pooka, fairies, or compassion in a tax collector would be no reason to conclude those things don't exist. But that's not how science works.

Belief based on subjective experience I have immense respect for. However, requesting I believe based on experiences I have no way of ascertaining the veracity of is really too much to ask. If God exists there should be some way to prove that empirically.

As for what a Christian minister would say to you, it would probably be something along the lines of "No, good deeds alone aren't enough, but if you accept Jesus as your savior right now you can still get in, no problem".

You know that people can still be Christian and not be Protestant, right?

if you're being insulted (sky fairy, etc) then it's insulting, but the worst is the person who is overtly condescending, who has found a way to make religion into something acceptable and "cute" and who explains her generosity of spirit in a way that seems to expect a pat on the back for being such a tolerant and accepting person.

I, like you, have a hard time with people like that. If you want to be religious, be that, and if you don't be something else. "Spiritual" people bug the crap out of me. It's like playing tennis without a net or keeping score. To me it seems like a perpetual guarantee of self-approval without any sort of effort.

Evolution doesn't necessarily weed out "wastes of energy". There's lots of wasteful and stupid things that organisms have and do that natural selection CAN'T weed out, because the costs of doing so are too large and the benefits too small.

That many or most people have a sense of God built into them, if it is true, might have benefits that outweigh its costs--and neither the benefits nor the costs of thinking there is a God could tell you if God is real.

Several years ago I was somewhat interested joining the Unitarian Universalist church. However I read an account of a controversy within the church about whether their creed should refer to God as He or She. The controversy was resolved by removing reference to God altogether, and officially declaring that belief in God was not required in the church.

It is easy to see how something like a snowflake can be formed by natural processes.

No, it's not. You are just used to thinking of them that way, and so it seems "easy" to you.

Can you explain how the atoms at the tip of one spur of the snowflake know how to do the exact same things as the atoms at the tip at the opposite edge, when they have roughly 10^20 atoms intervening which are all doing different things? As far as one atom in a snowflake concerned, the snowflake is vast enough to be a universe.

It speaks eloquently to the craftsmanship of the elves.

Anyway, you think this such a trivial issue-it isn't. It is very hard to explain snowflakes and it takes a lot of chemistry and math and generations of scientists lived and died putting together the science that explains it.

And you just wave you hand at it--it's obvious.

Maybe, if you were born a hundred years hence, the order of the universe would be as obviously "natural" to you as the order in a snowflake.

"lack of evidence for the existence of something is evidence for the non-existence of something."

Lack of evidence no more disproves a thing than it proves it. All discoveries in human history started out with no evidence at some point. This is why the earth was flat, there were no Americas, and Obama was the light worker. We lack evidence only until it's discovered.

The question of God may be unanswerable, or it may just be the last discovery. That's why I'm agnostic and not an atheist. I would prefer a God, but that's not enough, and neither is being limited by discovery's slog enough to reject him. I don't feel compelled to take a side, simply because others have.

Just to add two cents worth to the discussion here, faith is a response to hearing the preached, or reading the written, word of God.For that faith to become effective it must be accompanied by at least a moment of repentance of one's will to God's will. Then God can begin to share his secrets with you, and until then He doesn't reveal Himself to his enemies beyond the sign of the crucified dead body of Jesus The key belief is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead after three days buried, and no faith in that fact turns anyone attending or ministering in a Christian church into a deluded fool, as Crack says. So without faith a relationship with God is impossible, except for the eternally continuing covenant blessings on God's chosen people we call Jews.

"How does one explain the near-universal appreciation for its beauty though?

Evolutionary neurobiology."

So what is the selective mechanism of appreciation of natural beauty that is so advantageous that it would be universal in a species? Even appreciation of something as important as sex is not as universal. Why beauty?

I don't have opinion on whether unbelievers can be leaders of religious community. It's up to community to decide. However, for people, who are prejudiced against religious people as Esbensen is, to be leaders of religious community is on the werge of mental sickness.

So what is the selective mechanism of appreciation of natural beauty that is so advantageous

It might not have one in itself, but be a byproduct of something else that is advantageous; there are lots of features in organisms that don't necessarily have an advantage. A peacock's tail doesn't help a peacock fly, or get food, or escape predators, it's the opposite of advantageous--except that peahens, through some fluke, find it irresistible. Since natural selection doesn't plan and doesn't judge, we get useless things as side effects of useful things, and some times we get things that make little sense.

that it would be universal in a species? Even appreciation of something as important as sex is not as universal.

Are you sure that the appreciation of beauty is as widespread as the appreciation of sex?

There are other human universals--war, murder, rape, and until recently slavery. If we are going to down the is = ought route, shouldn't we consider negative human traits as well as positive? Otherwise we aren't seeking knowledge, but confirming prejudices.

Well, that's fine for your flavor of Christianity, but we can find as many statements of the "essentials" of Christianity as we can find denominations of Christianity--which leaves us no wiser than before, since we don't know which is the right one. But we do know that they each say the others have got it wrong.

From the outside, is it not reasonable to conclude that, instead of ONE of them being right, perhaps NONE of them are?

"Everyone is an atheist, some just believe in one fewer God than others."

Lol Gabe. Connect the dots. A peacock's tail is to attract mates. One of a gazillion examples. I don't know why Bag decided to go on about sex, which is a drive, but finding "beauty" - however one defines it - certainly seems connected to that. It just depends on whether the object of that "beauty" is a possible mate.

It is easy to see how something like a snowflake can be formed by natural processes.

No, it's not. You are just used to thinking of them that way, and so it seems "easy" to you.

Well, I do understand crystal formation and so yes, the concepts are very simple (the overall final structure looks complicated, but each added subunit follows a simple rule or two). Certainly, it is obvious that appreciation for beauty is orders of magnitude more complex.

Hitchens genuinely believes radical or jihadist Islam to be an existential threat to civilisation. First because it is a pronounced enemy of free speech and social liberty and has succeeded in intimidating and silencing civilians across "an extraordinary number of countries in Europe" and the rest of the world. And second, he says, "because it has potential access to weapons of mass destruction." In the end, he argues, there are no pain-free options. You have to choose which future regret you're going to have.

@ Gabriel...You have a good point about all the confusion from various sects and preferred teacher's versions of Christianity. That confusion can act either as a good reason to refuse the knowledge or a challenge to the gain knowledge. We can use the template of the Apostles Creed setting out the links in the chain of doctrine that defines Christianity, that has been possible since a Roman Bishop in Milan Italy writing a few years after Rome accepted Christianity set it down in 370 AD, supposedly as the tenets of the original 12 apostles.

They're the ones who don't believe in God but still want the church, when much of society wants God but doesn't want the church.

They're the ones who like the religion part, but not the core theology. I'm basically the entire opposite of that. I dislike the ceremony but wholly believe in the testimony.

It seems to me that Unitarians are much more reflective of previous generations where church was culturally obligatory, so people could really feel a sentimentality about all the forms and robes and fancy buildings and titles.

Are these mostly filled with 45 or older? Do they have young families or youth groups? I'm curious if there's any young movement of Unitarians. Seems like nowadays if you don't believe in God you sleep in on Sundays and don't make a show about not believing God.

I also, by the way, believe there's a lot of ministers who don't really believe in God, though not a lot who would be pure atheists here in America.

Functional atheism is very common in my estimation, both among the clergy and the many denominations.

"if I asked on my deathbed if he thought my good deeds in life were enough to get me into Heaven?"

I'm not ordained, but I do have a seminary degree. And I'd say, without hedging, that it's in God's hands. He's the judge, we're just the witnesses, even the ones who have fancy robes. Also, Matthew 25:31ff is a compelling passage that is probably ignored too much. It's not the only passage on the subject, but it's definitely an important one that affects what I would say on someone's deathbed and if I would allow them the benefit of the displayed grace in sharing of communion.

Ah, those Unitarians: So smug, so sanctimonious, so sure of their moral superiority in an "I'm more non-judgemental than you are" sort of way...and so non-judgemental that they cannot make the moral judgements that really count--even (or especially) when we're locked in an existential war.

In the entire history of mankind there has never been a good except in your heads - and you're still waiting for him to appear?

It's no wonder the religious get scammed more than anyone else.

Fools for Christ, indeed.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some reading up to do on whatever nonsense those billions of fools in India "believe" (which, hilariously, is different from what y'all are so sure of) and how it influences that even-nuttier NewAge,...

Enjoy yourselves, counting how many angels should be able to fit on the head of a pin, you fruitcakes.

It only happens sometimes - but sometimes when I google something while Goggle is momentarily (a second) giving me its search results (during that second) Either Goggle, Windows or Wikipedia opens up a new tab with/to the Wikipedia home page.

Crack...You are correct that we are still waiting eagerly for the resurrected Jesus to appear to claim His own. The first time he appeared was in fulfillment of the Hebrew prophets as a Messiah to rule the Kingdom of David beginning as a complete eternal sacrifice for all men. When He returns, He is coming in power to rule. Let's see what happens next year.